Sprinter only has about 188 HP?

[r456]

The OM651 in my sprinter is rated at 161 HP, when the same engine in sedan 195 HP.
Common procedure that engines for heavy applications are detuned to avoid overheating and reliability problems.
That said, I did test and my van pulled big boat from dead stop on 11% grade.

View attachment 177245

thanks! that is very helpful

 

[r456]

Let me know how you make out on that "moderate 30 degree hill" . That's a tough climb on foot. Even 30 per cent is well beyond anything you're likely to encounter on a public road.

30 degree is common in many mountaineer areas! SF, oakland hill, Rocky... a lot.

 

[tinman]

Well, I don't want to beat this to death, but I suspect that anybody designing a road with a 58% grade (conversion of 30 degrees to %) wouldn't have many friends, or a job.

 

[Wrinkledpants]

Diesel burns more slowly than gas. It's why diesels are limited in RPM as anything faster and it's hard to get complete fuel burn. HP is calculated, torque is what's measured on a dyno. So, saying it only makes 188 HP isn't the whole story as HP is calculated directly against RPM. The big torque values made by Diesel engines is due to the really high compression ratios they run (compression ignition). If you ran a gas engine at those compression ratios, you'd see similar torque values (hypothetically). Diesels will always make more torque than HP for those reasons, but if you hypothetically ran out a diesel torque curve to 6K RPM, you'd see some nice HP numbers. Contrary, comparing an naturally aspirated gas engine is kind of the opposite where torque values are relatively low, but HP is high. Take a Honda S2000 motor at 162 ft lbs and 237 HP vs a Sprinter at 325 ft lbs and 188 HP. Sprinter is RPM limited where the S2000 redlines at over 8K.

You can't compare HP from a gas car to HP in a diesel since torque values are so different. The equation for HP is (Torque x RPM)/5252. That 5k constant is where HP and torque cross on a dyno chart for a gas car.

If you compare HP between the MB 2.0 diesel and the MB 3.0 (161 vs 188), it doesn't seem like a lot. But, the torque value difference is 265 vs 325, which is a much bigger difference. The S2000 is 2.2 liters and makes 160 ft lbs vs the MB's 2.0 making 265 ft lbs. That's a huge difference between those two motors. Apples to oranges.

 

[blutow]

If you compare HP between the MB 2.0 diesel and the MB 3.0 (161 vs 188), it doesn't seem like a lot. But, the torque value difference is 265 vs 325, which is a much bigger difference. The S2000 is 2.2 liters and makes 160 ft lbs vs the MB's 2.0 making 265 ft lbs. That's a huge difference between those two motors. Apples to oranges.

The newer direct injected turbo gas engines are closing the torque gap. A good comparison is the 2.0 gas motor vs. the 2.0 diesel in the sprinter. They make about the same torque, the gas motor just guzzles more fuel doing it. With direct inject, you can run higher compression on low octane gas without running into detonation/knock. It's not diesel level compression, but they are pushing it pretty high and getting some crazy torque out of these gas motors.

 

[r456]

Diesel burns more slowly than gas. It's why diesels are limited in RPM as anything faster and it's hard to get complete fuel burn. HP is calculated, torque is what's measured on a dyno. So, saying it only makes 188 HP isn't the whole story as HP is calculated directly against RPM. The big torque values made by Diesel engines is due to the really high compression ratios they run (compression ignition). If you ran a gas engine at those compression ratios, you'd see similar torque values (hypothetically). Diesels will always make more torque than HP for those reasons, but if you hypothetically ran out a diesel torque curve to 6K RPM, you'd see some nice HP numbers. Contrary, comparing an naturally aspirated gas engine is kind of the opposite where torque values are relatively low, but HP is high. Take a Honda S2000 motor at 162 ft lbs and 237 HP vs a Sprinter at 325 ft lbs and 188 HP. Sprinter is RPM limited where the S2000 redlines at over 8K.

You can't compare HP from a gas car to HP in a diesel since torque values are so different. The equation for HP is (Torque x RPM)/5252. That 5k constant is where HP and torque cross on a dyno chart for a gas car.

If you compare HP between the MB 2.0 diesel and the MB 3.0 (161 vs 188), it doesn't seem like a lot. But, the torque value difference is 265 vs 325, which is a much bigger difference. The S2000 is 2.2 liters and makes 160 ft lbs vs the MB's 2.0 making 265 ft lbs. That's a huge difference between those two motors. Apples to oranges.

Thanks, that is very helpful! You have an engineering degree?

 

[OffroadHamster]

My very old 2010 Sienna van even has 266 HP while the big new Sprinter only has ~188 HP. Can a Sprinter even climb a moderate hill (a 30 degree hill for example) without any payload at all?

I am considering to buy a new Sprinter but get really discouraged with its 188 HP.

Any comments in this matter?

A 30 deg slope....LOL.....Your sienna has never climbed a 30deg slope.

This is a 30deg slope....and it takes crampons and alpine poles to climb it. 45 deg you better have your ice axes and no fear of heights.

In all seriousness though, the sprinter will climb your average STEEP mountain pass just fine. I have 33" At's and even before tune I could mantain above 60mph on all but the steepest grades. My van scales between 8000-8600lbs depending on trip.

 

[lindenengineering]

I feel inclined to add a few comments here.
The power of a diesel engine is produced by its cylinder expansion on the firing stroke during the third phases of combustion..
Compare typical indicator diagram between petrol (gasoline) & diesel and it tells all!

Now, I read is the ever present forum argument comparing a large capacity 6 litre plus medium duty truck engines stuffed into a pickup truck UNIQUE to the US market against a light duty engine of about 3 liters , universally accepted worldwide as a viable alternative.
So in short you are not comparing eggs to eggs.

So to summarize, the trend for years outside the USA is to produce dense engine manufacturing , which means lightening the cylinder block head and find ways of using aluminium & silicon alloys to reduce powerpack weight.
First, Why?
With the now-continual need to drive weight out of passenger vehicles, converting the heavy mass of engine blocks from their traditional cast iron to aluminum is a sure-fire method to deliver a major curb-weight cut; aluminum engine blocks can weigh 40% to 50% less than a comparable cast-iron block. And aluminum's excellent thermal conductivity often permits smaller-capacity cooling systems.

In short I doubt there will be very many new passenger-car engine programs in the near future that don't specify an aluminum block," and that includes light duty pick up truck as well .
Now in the US that hasn't been a big deal
Traditional CI casting companies will tell you that wooing US domestic business, you have the 'luxury' of displacement. Engines are large, so there is no particular need to use modern (bore treatment) methods. The major car companies here in the US always think first of cost and high volumes.
In short pretty conservative.
Not so in factories like MB & Toyota .
Reduction In weight and with the added bonus of reduced fuel consumption benefits are the major selling points of vehicles like the Sprinter van .
Dennis

 

[r456]

I feel inclined to add a few comments here.
The power of a diesel engine is produced by its cylinder expansion on the firing stroke during the third phases of combustion..
Compare typical indicator diagram between petrol (gasoline) & diersel and it tells all!

Now, I read is the ever present forum argument comparing a large capacity 6 litre plus medium duty truck engines stuffed into a pickup truck UNIQUE to the US market against a light duty engine of about 3 liters , universally accepted worldwide as a viable alternative.
So in short you are not comparing eggs to eggs.

So to summarize, the trend for years outside the USA is to produce dense engine manufacturing , which means lightening the cylinder block head and find ways of using aluminium & silicon alloys to reduce powerpack weight.
First, Why?
With the now-continual need to drive weight out of passenger vehicles, converting the heavy mass of engine blocks from their traditional cast iron to aluminum is a sure-fire method to deliver a major curb-weight cut; aluminum engine blocks can weigh 40% to 50% less than a comparable cast-iron block. And aluminum's excellent thermal conductivity often permits smaller-capacity cooling systems.

In short I doubt there will be very many new passenger-car engine programs in the near future that don't specify an aluminum block," and that includes light duty pick up truck as well .
Now in the US that hasn't been a big deal
Traditional CI casting companies will tell you that wooing US domestic business, you have the 'luxury' of displacement. Engines are large, so there is no particular need to use modern (bore treatment) methods. The major car companies here in the US always think first of cost and high volumes.
In short pretty conservative.
Not so in factories like MB & Toyota .
Reduction In weight and with the added bonus of reduced fuel consumption benefits are the major selling points of vehicles like the Sprinter van .
Dennis

Thanks for the comments. i trust Sprinter will get better and better.

 

[lindenengineering]

Thanks for the comments. i trust Sprinter will get better and better.

I think not in this engine generation.
Maybe a new radical design is in the wings !
How's about a wet liner engine in an open alum block!
But I think MB is sold on alusil coatings
Who knows!
Dennis

 

[4wheeldog]

I don't see a lot more development of "Infernal combustion engines." We are not a lot more than a decade from EVs taking over almost completely.
Sure, there will be some niche uses for IC motors......But the advantages of EVs will be complete, once range and charging speed are addressed.

 

[Kajtek1]

I don't see a lot more development of "Infernal combustion engines." We are not a lot more than a decade from EVs taking over almost completely.

That's what they keep on saying for last 25 years.
USA doesn't have enough electric power to run cars on it.
I think the OM651 engine will be still on top of technology in 20 years. Younger OM654 has newer technology, so on paper better performance, but MB still can't get it approved for US market.
Something they are not telling us?

 

[4wheeldog]

That's what they keep on saying for last 25 years.
USA doesn't have enough electric power to run cars on it.
I think the OM651 engine will be still on top of technology in 20 years. Younger OM654 has newer technology, so on paper better performance, but MB still can't get it approved for US market.
Something they are not telling us?

30 years ago we had very few cell towers in this country. But when people found them to be essential, we had towers everywhere in 10 years.
When the first Model T hit the road 112 years ago, you had to buy gas at the dry goods store or pharmacy in many parts of the country.
10 years later, gas pumps were all over the place. A new consumer industry was born.
Infrastructure follows demand. And we are going to be rehabilitating our electric infrastructure anyway.
Even if some electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuel, that is still more efficient than burning it in millions of portable units.

 

[ECU]

I don't know. There is line loss.

 

[Kajtek1]

30 years ago we had very few cell towers in this country. But when people found them to be essential, we had towers everywhere in 10 years.
When the first cars Model T hit the road 112 years ago, you had to buy gas at the dry goods store or pharmacy in many parts of the country.
10 years later, gas pumps were all over the place. A new consumer industry was born.
Infrastructure follows demand. And we are going to be rehabilitating our electric infrastructure anyway.
Even if some electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuel, that is still more efficient than burning it in millions of portable units.

I've been in this country 35 years and hard not to notice how badly attitudes changed in those years.
30 years ago we did not have cellphones, but if the salesman did not pick up the phone, he had to call back within 15 minutes or he was in unemployment line next week.
Today automated call system will keep you for over 1 hr before a live person will answer and that person seldom has knowledge how to help you.
So the ole great USA is taking nose dive in mental abilities to the degree that we can't even buy light bulb that would be made in USA.
Solar system sales are still based on scams and customer brainwashing.
I only hope something will turn around.
My son got new job on Lucid plant. Lucid for the 1st year of production plans to make only top trim with $170,000 sticker. No car left the assemble line yet, but whole production for next year is already sold out. Lot of Chinese put the orders.
We sure are living in interesting times.

 

[blutow]

30 years ago we had very few cell towers in this country. But when people found them to be essential, we had towers everywhere in 10 years.
When the first cars Model T hit the road 112 years ago, you had to buy gas at the dry goods store or pharmacy in many parts of the country.
10 years later, gas pumps were all over the place. A new consumer industry was born.
Infrastructure follows demand. And we are going to be rehabilitating our electric infrastructure anyway.
Even if some electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuel, that is still more efficient than burning it in millions of portable units.

The heavy investment is happening in EV, but I was trying to make the point that car companies are still investing in gas motors and have pretty much abandoned diesel R&D except in heavy applications.

EV is moving fast and I'd guess it will be the market leading tech for light vehicles in ~10 years, but I think it will be longer than that before IC engines are really hard to get (or you are significantly penalized for getting one). It really depends on the government and much of this will be dictated at the state level. Even CA's recent announcement gives another 15 years before they plan to completely ban IC engines. They will make it painful and expensive long before that (like ASAP). Other places will be less aggressive.

The gas station analogy is somewhat valid and anything can happen quickly if there is enough demand, but putting in this amount of EV infrastructure is a much bigger task than enabling gas stations. Even if you could magically turn every gas pump into a charging station tomorrow, that doesn't solve the problem for long haul trips. Imagine what every gas station on a major interstate would look like if it took 40 minute to fill up each car instead of 4 minutes. The battery swap approach helps with the time problem if you could have enough battery stock at each swap site, but that doesn't seem like it's the direction the industry is going right now. The bright side is that home charging takes some of the infrastructure/logistics needs out for local trips, but out ultilities and serivce to our homes will need much work even to make that happen.

 

[4wheeldog]

The heavy investment is happening in EV, but I was trying to make the point that car companies are still investing in gas motors and have pretty much abandoned diesel R&D except in heavy applications.

EV is moving fast and I'd guess it will be the market leading tech for light vehicles in ~10 years, but I think it will be longer than that before IC engines are really hard to get (or you are significantly penalized for getting one). It really depends on the government and much of this will be dictated at the state level. Even CA's recent announcement gives another 15 years before they plan to completely ban IC engines. They will make it painful and expensive long before that (like ASAP). Other places will be less aggressive.

The gas station analogy is somewhat valid and anything can happen quickly if there is enough demand, but putting in this amount of EV infrastructure is a much bigger task than enabling gas stations. Even if you could magically turn every gas pump into a charging station tomorrow, that doesn't solve the problem for long haul trips. Imagine what every gas station on a major interstate would look like if it took 40 minute to fill up each car instead of 4 minutes. The battery swap approach helps with the time problem if you could have enough battery stock at each swap site, but that doesn't seem like it's the direction the industry is going right now. The bright side is that home charging takes some of the infrastructure/logistics needs out for local trips, but out ultilities and serivce to our homes will need much work even to make that happen.

Toyota a Volkswagen are working on solid state batteries that can be charged in maybe 10 minutes.
The change will be driven by economics. The developed world will see that IC can no longer compete, cost wise. EVs are getting cheaper, and they cut maintenance costs by at least 50%, probably more. The cost to move a vehicle with electricity is a fraction of what fossil fuels cost. So I don't see much need for government intervention.

 

[Kajtek1]

Lucid already has a system who will give you 20 miles range for each 1 minute of recharging, but there is still much more to EV ownership.
Our friend had Lexus hybrid. A year ago the batteries died in 8 yo vehicle and she spend lot of time to find a deal for $ 5000 replacement.
A year later she traded the hybrid for $6000.

 

[GLJones]

The move to electric will happen when electric meets the needs of the public and businesses, not because the government is pushing it. The environmental claims are bogus. From the methods electricity is made to the rare-earth materials mined and battery manufacturing, disposal and recycling, electric cars are NOT environmentally friendly....no not even better than IC engines burning fossil fuels.

Eventually, technology will catch up to the needs...but predicting when is hard. One breakthrough can see change happen quickly. Decades of small improvements could mean decades until the needs are met. The current push is more political than due to demand or real environmental concerns. When the technology is right, the people will not need convincing. They will not need tax incentives or 24/7 preaching. When the technology meets their needs at a cost better than other solutions that already meet their needs, they will buy in.

 

[lindenengineering]

An 8 years old Lexus uses a Nimh battery .
I/We get these ex Toyota /Lexus for $3300 trade with a $1000 core .
Where $5000 comes into the picture is anyone's guess .
Buy buying a high quality car like a Lexus at $6000 was a steal .
Dennis